5 ms·

Thomas literally wrote in concurrence that this decision also implies that Lawrence, Obergefell, and Griswold are on the chopping block next.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Until it actually happens I don't care. Almost anything can happen. There is not enough time in the day to get worked up over everything that can happen.
- fuzzer37 4y ago
  > This doesn't affect me therefore I don't care about my fellow citizens.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Wild speculation about the future doesn't affect anybody.
    - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
      Exactly how is it wild speculation when they are outright admitting that they want to do it, and they have enough far-right reactionaries on the court to do it?
- generj 4y ago
  You do realize this exact same argument was made for decades as the Federalist Society worked to make today’s ruling happen?
polski-g 4y ago
Those cases created rights out of thin air and said rights are supported by huge majorities of the country. It would be trivial to pass a law actually codifying them. Not so with universal abortion, because it's not popular at all: https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/1521509224861343745 https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/152150922486134374...
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  That data is different enough from other poll data that I've seen that I have to call biased sampling.
  - polski-g 4y ago
    It's very close to polling which breaks the question down more narrowly than simply "do you support abortion".
vorpalhex 4y ago
Please make sure to read the Thomas opinion in full and not just any excerpts without context that may be flying around social media.
- teachrdan 4y ago
  Are you able to make a substantive argument here? Can you quote anything from Thomas's decision to suggest he does not want to revisit anti-sodomy laws, gay marriage, and trans rights? Otherwise your post looks like a low-effort way to refute OP's argument with absolutely no evidence.
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
  Thomas cites himself (he absolutely loves to cite himself, he does it 19 times in 7 pages(!)), 'As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lacks any basis in the Constitution.”' He then goes on to say outright that Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell should be reconsidered. I take that to mean the majority reactionary court, who also do not believe in substantive due process, will overturn those. And it also implies a call to action for reactionaries to start building cases.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Until it actually happens I don't care. Almost anything can happen. There is not enough time in the day to get worked up over everything that can happen.

fuzzer37 4y ago
> This doesn't affect me therefore I don't care about my fellow citizens.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Wild speculation about the future doesn't affect anybody.
  - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
    Exactly how is it wild speculation when they are outright admitting that they want to do it, and they have enough far-right reactionaries on the court to do it?
generj 4y ago
You do realize this exact same argument was made for decades as the Federalist Society worked to make today’s ruling happen?

polski-g 4y ago

Those cases created rights out of thin air and said rights are supported by huge majorities of the country. It would be trivial to pass a law actually codifying them. Not so with universal abortion, because it's not popular at all: https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/1521509224861343745 https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/152150922486134374...

CuriouslyC 4y ago
That data is different enough from other poll data that I've seen that I have to call biased sampling.
- polski-g 4y ago
  It's very close to polling which breaks the question down more narrowly than simply "do you support abortion".

vorpalhex 4y ago

Please make sure to read the Thomas opinion in full and not just any excerpts without context that may be flying around social media.

teachrdan 4y ago
Are you able to make a substantive argument here? Can you quote anything from Thomas's decision to suggest he does not want to revisit anti-sodomy laws, gay marriage, and trans rights? Otherwise your post looks like a low-effort way to refute OP's argument with absolutely no evidence.
rhinoceraptor 4y ago
Thomas cites himself (he absolutely loves to cite himself, he does it 19 times in 7 pages(!)), 'As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lacks any basis in the Constitution.”' He then goes on to say outright that Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell should be reconsidered. I take that to mean the majority reactionary court, who also do not believe in substantive due process, will overturn those. And it also implies a call to action for reactionaries to start building cases.